WHAT IS THIS TW''@ish CARP FROM BENNETT?

Offer of amends. A defendant who has made an honest mistake or is unable or
unwilling to defend a libel claim may make an offer of amends,126 which requires
publication of an apology and the payment of compensation and costs.127 This
procedure is frequently used and appears to work well.128

What a very interesting paragraph. It appears to work well? I wonder if it has worked well recently?

It looks as though it might work again before much longer.

bb1 wrote: The defence of qualified privilege is defeated if the publisher was malicious in
the sense that the dominant motive for publication was improper.


There's way too much to take in on a quick read, but I suspect that, if this becomes law, the party is over for those lunatics.

What was it the lady on the Parliament committee said about the vile ones. Ah yes, I remember now. "I don't know how these people can live with themselves". And Bennett was sitting right behind Mr. McCann when it was said

Ah yes....I wonder if Bennett will offer any comment on the Offer of Amends?

bb1 wrote:Ah yes....I wonder if Bennett will offer any comment on the Offer of Amends?

He hasn't so far, has he? He's done his apology but that was only one of the demands required. So why do one part if you are not going to do the others? The others being to pay a sum of money to Mr Kennedy, which he would in turn donate to the Fund, and to pay some costs.

Just looking at that post is irritating, Tony - the way Bennett cannot say, simply, that someone left - they've 'scuttled'.

And Clarrie was being niether snide nor dismissive when he commented on the internet hounders, he was stating a fact.


As for sending a message - it makes my skin crawl.

bb1 wrote:Just looking at that post is irritating, Tony - the way Bennett cannot say, simply, that someone left - they've 'scuttled'.

And Clarrie was being niether snide nor dismissive when he commented on the internet hounders, he was stating a fact.


As for sending a message - it makes my skin crawl.

And he did his stalking with Members of Parliament watching

So he did, Tony and fortuitously videotaped.

lily wrote:So he did, Tony and fortuitously videotaped.

And those who missed him in Parliament, had a chance to hear what he had written courtesy of the BBC and a creepy voice

He does like to get himself known, Tony.

lily wrote:So he did, Tony and fortuitously videotaped.

And wasn't he pleased about that. Delighted in fact, I seem to remember.

In some respects the online environment makes defamation
more damaging: whereas newspapers are quickly thrown away, online archives will ensure
that defamatory material will instantly be flagged up on an internet search. Not only does
this last until taken down, it can be easily and instantly spread around the world. One wellpublicised accusation, even if subsequently found to be untrue, can destroy a reputation.

The likes of Bennett and his chums depend on that, don't they? It doesn't have to be true - in fact, they seem to prefer to make stuff up - but once it is in the public domain, they are happy..

I still can't work out what Bennett thought he was doing with that Chapman accusation.
The real one was in prison in 2007 so can't possibly have had anything to do with Madeleine. So why drag it up except for spite.

I can't think of words bad enough to describe what Bennett did to a totally innocent boy. Well, I can, but they would blow The Word Censor.

bb1 wrote:In some respects the online environment makes defamation
more damaging: whereas newspapers are quickly thrown away, online archives will ensure
that defamatory material will instantly be flagged up on an internet search. Not only does
this last until taken down, it can be easily and instantly spread around the world. One wellpublicised accusation, even if subsequently found to be untrue, can destroy a reputation.

The likes of Bennett and his chums depend on that, don't they? It doesn't have to be true - in fact, they seem to prefer to make stuff up - but once it is in the public domain, they are happy..

And Bennett left his latest one up long enough for it to travel and copied.

True - he did. It does however throw the quality of "research" into shap relief.

sans_souci wrote:True - he did. It does however throw the quality of "research" into shap relief.

True.

I'm not going to repeat it, it's vile, but the hounders are now having an intense discussion, which they are clearly enjoying, about whether or not Madeleine is wearing a swimsuit in a photo.

I do hope CEOPS are taking an interest in that lot.

they are. and they are.

bb1 wrote:I'm not going to repeat it, it's vile, but the hounders are now having an intense discussion, which they are clearly enjoying, about whether or not Madeleine is wearing a swimsuit in a photo.

I do hope CEOPS are taking an interest in that lot.

Where is this happening, Bonny?
Is it on havern's?

This thread, Tony:

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3761p40-gerry-mccann-on-returning-to-work

Foul.

Thanks Bonny.

Bloody Hell, I can't help wondering under what sort of sexual repressions they are raising their own children. They've all got minds like sewers.

The mock shock / typing one handed syndrome? - Is she naked? maybe she is wearing pants? - surely she should be wearing a swimmingsuit? Yuk.

And what is all this about makeup and professional photographer? You are right Sabot.

My kids used to run around stark naked at that age. Mind you, it was some time ago, but even now I don't see paedophiles around every corner.
And some of these kiddie swim suits are provocative anyway. Why put a very small girl in some sort of bikini top?

And what Make Up? I can't see any Make Up.